Former president Carter on Friday came out strongly against military action in Syria without the United Nation's blessing.

"Punitive Action" without a mandate from the U.N. Security Council or "broad support from NATO and the Arab League" would be illegal under international law and unlikely to alter the course of the war,"...

The Arab League and Britain (and even Germany now, too) have backed out, and Carter said AND. France isn't going to put this up for a vote, either, because it would lose. Everyone knows this. Obama MUST get Congressional approval, otherwise he will be going against the standard that he and Biden set in 2007.

Jonah Goldberg at the National Review talks about this obsession with getting the UN’s approval:

Its always better to have friends and allies pitching in  many hands make light work, and all that. But if something is in Americas vital national interest, it doesnt cease to be because Belize or Botswana wont lend a hand. Posses arent more moral in proportion to the number of white hats who sign up.

Somehow this basic fact was lost in the last decade or so. According to liberals in the Bush years, the essence of wise foreign policy boiled down to: Its better to be wrong in a big group than to be right alone.

Anyway, what I really dont get is the investment of moral authority in the Security Council or the U.N. generally. The permanent members of the U.N. Security Council are France, Great Britain, the United States, China, and Russia. The other nations of the 15-member body rotate on and off the council. They also dont get a veto the way the permanent five do. But, for the record, they currently are: Argentina, Australia, Azerbaijan, Guatemala, Luxembourg, Morocco, Pakistan, South Korea, Rwanda, and Togo.

Now, taking nothing away from the great and glorious accomplishments of the Luxembourgeois, Togoans, and Rwandans  never mind the invaluable insights the Pakistanis have into what constitute Americas vital interests  I am at a near-total loss to see how gaining their approval for a measure makes that measure more worthwhile. If you believe Bill Clinton was right to bomb the Balkans to stop ethnic cleansing (which I do), do you think that action was any less moral or right because he did it without the support of the U.N. and therefore  according to international law  illegally? I dont.

Even a broken clock is right at least once a day and this time he is correct. Letting this guy get away with marching off to war, regardless of the high moral ground he set for us, is just going to embolden this POS to build upon that later. He will build upon his recent spate of executive orders and everything will be directed from the oval office. This is why they put children in playpens, to protect themselves, this guy unbounded is a major threat to the nation and our liberties.

11
posted on 08/30/2013 10:30:01 AM PDT
by Mouton
(The insurrection laws perpetuate what we have for a government now.)

I would take Carter as President over 0bama ANY day. At least Carter is white and therefore accountable for his actions and our Congress wouldn’t be afraid of being called ‘racist’ if to challenge him, like they are with 0bama.

This has always meant that if a president wants to declare war, he has to get their approval.

A declaration of war is not always necessary, however, but normally a president needs to get the formal support of Congress. Bush was very careful to get support, even when going into a situation where our enemy was not another state, initially, but terrorist groups and a couple of states (loosely understood, in the case of Afghanistan) that were thought to be supporting them. But he was actually was supported by Congress and everybody else when he went into Afghanistan and even into Iraq (which I think was not a bad thing but ended badly when we started kowtowing to Islam).

Clinton, the left's golden boy, had actually gotten all of his "authorization" to support the Muslims in Bosnia from the UN, which of course was completely manipulated by its Islamic members, and the Dems let Americans be UN troops.

Obama isn't having as much luck. This is partly because his obnoxious behavior has pissed off Europe and partly he doesn't understand Islam and doesn't realize that his being a Sunni supporter (because he believes it's the most anti-Western Islam) is upsetting other Muslims. He thought he would be their hero. But it's also because he doesn't realize that the Saudis want to keep the good times rolling for their princes and they don't want him to interfere with it.

The problem is that Obama, loose cannon in chief, could set off a true conflagration in the ME that could involve the entire world.

The expert on mediocrity and criticism of America weighs in. I don’t give a Rats A** about what the U.N. says. The fact is action without the approval of the U.S. Congress is illegal. Where are all the protestors that bashed Bush? Where is Biden with the threat of impeachment? If these people could be any more shallow they would be on the other side of the earth.

35
posted on 08/30/2013 11:09:15 AM PDT
by Mastador1
(I'll take a bad dog over a good politician any day!)

I thought intervention was a bad idea. But after hearing Carters latest asinine statement, I guess I need to reconsider.

LOL! Yup, one anti-American moron vs another anti-American moron. I can at least take solace in the fact that although I agree with the 2nd worst President in US history that we should not intervene in Syria, I disagree with him about the reason. The UN carries zero authority. They should curl up and die. At a minimum we should evict those gelded bureaucrats from our shores.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.